Half a moment,
now I am confused by your comment below.
"please look at embedpous.com with a conventional browser."
care to define that term where accessibility is concerned
If your tool is for the general public, that public will decide based on
their computer needs what browser fits them, just as individuals decide
what mode of transportation is best for them. there is *no* such thing as
a conventional browser. The suggestion that a person using the best tool
for their needs is defying some sort of convention, is a disturbing one to
hold on a list focused on making access for all the ahem convention. Care
to clarify?
Karen
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, EmbedPlus wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this to light John. I have been a bit confused by the
> responses I was getting until Cliff offered his feedback.
>
> Bob, I'm again confused by your recent emails. Particularly the following
> three statements:
>
> 1) "when all I get when I try to use it is them saying how great it works,
> but nothing works."
>
> 2) "when folks say things are 'accessible' when in fact the accessibility
> is limited."
>
> 3) "if it was advertised as doing X,Y,& Z and not everything then I
> probably
> wouldn't have said anything."
>
> I think there a couple of things that you can do to help you understand
> what is going on, and to help us better understand your critique.
>
> 1) Read the original email I posted on this list. Here's the text:
> We've been getting lots of feedback regarding the accessibility benefits of
> some of these features like movable zoom, slow motion, and even third-party
> annotations. As the tool continues to grow in popularity, the importance of
> its accessibility rises. I decided to do some research and found the WAI
> Interest Group to be a major proponent of accessibility on the web. If
> anyone has time to take a look at EmbedPlus and share feedback that could
> help improve the tool, please do.
>
> 2) Please look at the EmbedPlus site with a conventional browser so you can
> see what's actually there.
>
> After that, you can see that in no way was I claiming that the product was
> some pillar of video accessibility. The truth is that we got comments from
> past users about some features and how they helped. The only thing that I
> "advertised" in the original email were those three features, which do work
> within the platforms that we as non-accessibility experts know. You'll also
> see I clearly said it was in need of improvement hence my coming here.
> Finally, where are these ads that you mentioned seeing?
>
> -Tay
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> From: accessys@smart.net
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:11 PM
> To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
> Subject: RE: Web video accessibility
>
> was not trying to embarass anyone but it does bother me when folks say
> things are "accessible" when in fact the accessibility is limited. I
> would have been thrilled and have told them so if the you tube video had
> played with a discription.
>
> and don't get me wrong I have praised those who do it so all can use.
>
> "propaganda" may have been a bit strong but when all I get when I try to
> use it is them saying how great it works, but nothing works.
>
> if it was advertised as doing X,Y,& Z and not everything then I probably
> wouldn't have said anything.
>
> and open source is critical and becoming more so with everyone trying to
> exclude everyone else. I test using a basic system that a person with
> little or no money might use (remember 70% of people with disabilities
> live below the poverty level.) testing can't just be for the latest and
> greatest and most modern equipment because that isn't what most people
> have.
>
> maybe I'm wrong but when someone asks for a test I assume they want to
> know what works and doesn't work, lots of you guys will test the high end
> but only a couple of us will test from the average. I use a special
> detuned if you will setup to test and it is a basic package that is
> avaliable at little or no cost to anyone and can run on an older computer.
>
> I mean no harm to EmbedPlus they are trying but a little "truth in
> advertising" would have helped. so far there isn't a single product out
> there that will provide a full range of access to everyone, so stating
> what it will do and what it won't is important.
>
> personally the internet was far more accessible 25years ago than it is
> today, but it was very limited, all of the bells and whistles that makes
> the web so enticing to so many also has a disadvantage of excluding many.
>
> isn't it our mission to make sure that the web excludes no one, for as
> soon as we exclude one we open the door to exclude all.
>
> Bob
> crawling down off soapbox and back into hole
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, John Foliot wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: John Foliot
>> To: accessys@smart.net, 'EmbedPlus'
>> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Web video accessibility
>> Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:45:08 +0000
>> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>>
>> accessys@smart.net wrote:
>>>
>>> the test view was
>>> linux Ubuntu 8.4 and the browser was lynx
>>>
>>> and the propaganda was all the stuff saying how great Embed was.
>>>
>>> actually I didn't expect it to work, how do you get a basically video
>>> format to work in an audio/text system of viewing.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Can you tell us what the point was that you were trying to make,
> exactly?
>> Your appreciation of, and for, open-source software such as linux and
> lynx
>> is well known, but in all honesty you put the folks at EmbedPlus through
> a
>> minor "panic" when you said that their system didn't work.
>>
>> We all know that video cannot be played in lynx - and you certainly knew
>> that. What was the point?
>>
>> As for "propaganda" - it is a site that is promoting their tool: one
> that
>> they have come forward with, with a certain sense of "purity of heart" -
>> the developers want to do the right thing and are asking if they are
> going
>> in the right direction. They came to the "experts" for feedback and
>> comments, not to be made fun of or used as some kind of pawn in your own
>> personal mission. Cliff Tyllick's response is the kind of useful
> feedback
>> they sought, and serves as an example of how we all should be
> interacting
>> with those that come to the accessibility space: open, welcoming and
>> willing to help, guide and instruct.
>>
>> Using language such as "propaganda" and sending the EmbedPlus developers
>> on a wild goose-chase does very little to offer encouragement to the
>> larger development community, and simply perpetuates the notion that
>> "those accessibility people" can't be satisfied no matter how hard
> other's
>> try.
>>
>> I for one am embarrassed that you chose to respond the way you did, and
>> hope that the folks at EmbedPlus will not use your response as a measure
>> of how the majority of the online accessibility community interacts with
>> developers.
>>
>> JF
>>
>> ============================
>> John Foliot
>> Program Manager
>> Stanford Online Accessibility Program
>> http://soap.stanford.edu
>> Stanford University
>> Tel: 650-468-5785
>>
>> ---
>> Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page
>>
>> ============================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>